Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. You'll receive an email shortly with a link to create a new password. If you have trouble finding this email, please check your spam folder.

Voting for a Better US Political System

The US political system has gone off the rails, a reality that is often blamed on gerrymandering, rising economic inequality, a campaign finance system that favors the wealthy and powerful, and slanted journalism. Yet there is another culprit, over which ordinary citizens actually have a lot of control: low voter turnout.

CAMBRIDGE – The American political train has gone off the rails, and it seems farther than ever from getting back on track. There has been a lot of finger pointing, with commentators blaming issues like gerrymandering, rising economic inequality, the campaign finance system, and unbalanced journalism. But the public cannot address these genuine flaws in the system directly. What they can do is tackle another fundamental problem: low voter turnout.

The beauty of democracy is that, if people vote, they can effect change. It may not happen as quickly as they would like, and the candidates may not always be ideal. But voters can still help shape their country’s future.

Nowadays, many are politically disillusioned. With the rich and powerful pulling the strings, ordinary people feel that they have no influence on electoral outcomes. So, they conclude, they might as well not register or show up to vote. This behavior is most prominent among young people and some ethnic groups, particularly Latinos and Asian-Americans.

To continue reading, please log in or enter your email address.

Registration is quick and easy and requires only your email address. If you already have an account with us, please log in. Or subscribe now for unlimited access.

Jeffrey Frankel, a professor at Harvard University's Kennedy School of Government, previously served as a member of President Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers. He is a research associate at the US National Bureau of Economic Research, where he is a member of the Business Cycle Dating Committee, the official US arbiter of recession and recovery.

Yes it is true that “your” vote rarely makes the critical difference, but participation is meaningful if you want to be part of a community. But what about when you “know” that your vote and similar votes will never make a difference? That is the situation for conservatives in California considering whether to vote in a presidential election.

To revisit the origins of the USA "A Republic if you can keep it", could do much toward rekindling American's responsibilities balanced to our rights. Our 'representatives' lip-service to wishing a greater voter turn out falls flat given no national voting-day holiday. My wish has long been to ferret out the hypocrisies of public discourse; Most aggressively in that spewed forth by the mainstream media/news outlets.

you get it wrong. democracy is not to elect the less wicked like you suggested. it as much about electing the wickedest as much it is about electing the right one. this is the way people will get to know how their voting the wrong guy can affect them.

Jeffrey Frankel--This is not an advocacy for voting; it is a crypto-democrat advocacy for Clinton. Those who will be voting for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson would put the establishments of both parties on notice that people are not willing to tolerate the corrupt political system much longer. That will bring more change to the system than a vote for either major party candidate which will further strengthen the existing corrupt politics and policies.

"The beauty of democracy is that, if people vote, they can effect change."
This is a totally incorrect argument. If the candidates from both the major parties are self-serving and deeply flawed , voting won't change the system. Voting would perpetuate the current corrupt system--the business-as-usual would prevail!

The problem is the corrupt system of purely "elective" government - without genuine (i.e. direct) Democracy - and the resultant adverse selection of aggressively narcissistic political agents. Economics Nobel laureate James Buchanan described the problem thus:

“[S]uppose that a monopoly right is to be auctioned; whom will we predict to be the highest bidder? Surely we can presume that the person who intends to exploit the monopoly power most fully, the one for whom the expected profit is highest, will be among the highest bidders for the franchise. In the same way, positions of political power will tend to attract those persons who place higher values on the possession of such power. These persons will tend to be the highest bidders in the allocation of political offices. . . . Is there any presumption that political rent seeking will ultimately allocate offices to the ‘best’ persons? Is there not the overwhelming presumption that offices will be secured by those who value power most highly and who seek to use such power of discretion in the furtherance of their personal projects, be these moral or otherwise? Genuine public-interest motivations may exist and may even be widespread, but are these motivations sufficiently passionate to stimulate people to fight for political office, to compete with those whose passions include the desire to wield power over others?” (James Buchanan and Geoffrey Brennan, “The Reason of Rules”.)

The Australian system of government is no less corrupt. Indeed the Westminster system of "elective dictatorship" with its supine legislature give even greater monopoly power to the executive. (Only in the Senate which is elected according to a form of proportional representation is there any competition from minor parties, and even here the recent deal between the Coalition and the Greens sought to eliminate that by raising the threshold for election.)

There are good reasons for compulsory voting (most importantly to avoid the problem of Prisoners' Dilemma) but compulsory voting in itself doesn't solve the problem of corrupt elective government.

In fact, compulsory voting in Australia is used mainly in an attempt to legitimise the nonsensical notion of "political mandate": after everyone has been forced to vote for one of the two Establishment parties, the winning party then declares that it has support for each and every one its policies.

The corrupt system of elective government is not Democracy. Indeed, in the US context it was adopted precisely to thwart the possibility of Democracy. One need only look to comments of Madison, Hamilton and others at the Constitutional Convention to see what their attitude to Democracy was.

At least, however, they had the integrity to call a spade and spade. The elitist doublespeak of using "democracy" to describe "non-democracy" began only later (in 1798) when any threat of real Democracy had been safely averted.

If you want to know what form of government the People of the United States want, then why not ask them? Directly. In a series of referendums in which all the options are made available.

The answer of course is that whenever this has been tried the People express an unambiguous preference for actual Democracy!! And where they have actual Democracy - in the form of initiative-and-referendum - they do not vote to repeal it or limit it, even though it is a straightforward matter to initiate a referendum for that purpose.

True Democracy demonstrates the ongoing consent of the People in a way that the corrupt system of elective government never can.

And that is something the Elite - and the sycophantic apologists who seek to justify them - can never accept.

And yet here in Australia we see our own political system as also being flawed. Prime Ministers can select their own election date, micro-parties from the fringes have managed to worm their way into the balance of power in our Senate, campaign contributions are just another word for bribes especially when the donor contributes to both political parties. Still, imagine what we could do, taking the best ideas from each other. For me, that would start with banning all political contributions except from people on the electoral roll and limiting the amount to some figure within reach of the average voter.

The US presidential election will be determined in one of the swing states: Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, Iowa, Pennsylvania, etc. If you live in Massachusetts and want to elect Clinton, there's no point in voting, since Massachusetts delegates will go to Clinton with a very (VERY) high probability. For the same reason, if you live in Massachusetts and really want to elect Trump, there is still next to no point in voting. Unless you live in a swing state, it is pointless to vote for a presidential candidate. This ignores state and local elections, of course, and ignores the civic duty aspect of the question. The example of young voters and Brexit suggests removing the electoral college excuse for not voting won't solve anything, but it would be a step in the right direction.

Voting is many ways deeply flawed with most voters simply voting for a party through habit, or a candidate through familiarity. An angry blog post might not be capable of changing the status quo directly but it can change someone's mind. On the other hand, you seem to just propose the opposite, that more people voting will produce better outcomes - which does not make a lot of sense when you consider the small amount of focus the average voter directs towards the problem. Many of those who don't vote often don't do so because they are too distracted, too stoned, too immature or too confused to even begin to understand what is at stake. Bringing them into the fold just brings more of the same.

Rather, the real solution is to work towards raising up the thinking of those who do vote - from one of partisanship to one of introspection and understanding. Regrettably, parties who currently do that walk away with about 1% of the vote while 99% goes to those who simply like the color red/blue more than others or if that is too simple for you - they simply prefer guns and hate abortion or contrary to that simply hate guns and prefer abortion.

If you really want to fix the voting system remove the names of the parties and candidates from the ballots and simply put their proposed policies.

Another interesting method was tried in Norway where people must appoint someone they know to carry their vote. Then, similar to jury duty in the US, this person must take considerable time and effort to study the issues at hand before casting his votes. It avoids both the populist trap (stupid decisions) and the elitist trap (where interests are conflicted).

It should be noted that in western europe, especially among the university educated youth, radical materialism reigns supreme. It implies that there is no free will and, that after death, there is nothing left like a soul, mind, will, or any other metaphysical stuff like a giant transcendent blue spaghetti that can get another body or something. In other words, our ability to choose would be simply an illusion generated by a stochastic electro-chemical mechanism called the brain. The consequence of this is that the future simply doesn't matter beyond your lifetime, unless you feel empathy for the piles of atomes that will be around in the future equipped with their illusion that they are voting based on free will, rather on say, conditioning by the stochastic cluster of piles of atoms called society. It is quite ironical that the free "advanced" (advanced at least in heating up the atmosphere per capita) societies are in large part made of people thinking they have no free will, while "non-free" societies like China are made by people mostly thinking they do have free will. The whole thing reminds me of the notion that there are no better slaves than slaves that ignore their own enslavement.

@Michael Public Thanks, I saw a poll on wikipedia about belief in spirit, god or something that confirms what you wrote. I don't think there is a true difference between the mindset of the master of capital and the servant of capital. I suspect there is a lot of survival instinct going on. One funny model could be called the banana gathering monkey model. If you own a monkey A that is able to gather twenty bananas per hour, and a monkey B that is able to gather fourty bananas per hour, if you would have to sell both of them, you will probably sell A at half the price you sell B, in other words they are "worth" their productivity rate. With the same monkeys A and B, if you suddenly run out of food and have to kill one of them to have a meal, you will probably kill A, because he is worth less on the market place. In other words the monkeys, if they don't want to be slaughtered first, will identify their market price (B double than A) to a direct proportional measure of their survivability. In the real world, this translates for example in the fact that with exactly the same health insurance policy, in the U.S. , health care quality provided on average will be proportional to the income/social class of the patient, all other factors being equal. The same thing is also observable with race, in the U.S. with the same health insurance policy, quality of health care on average is proportional to your degree of white caucasian racial purity, all other factors being equal. With race the rationale is different, but also zoologically apparently self-evident: if a group of monkey type X has a minority of monkey type Y, it will take care less of type Y than type X because to protect the genetic "self" it doesn't need to protect type Y, not to mention that Y being a minority (all other things equal like strength per capita etc) cannot impose equality of treatment., or it could be, if eastern asiatic in the U.S. are shown to be treated better than whites, that it is only about pure market worth coinciding with the fact that different ethnic groups happen to have different average incomes.

Well, polling shows that most people are not materialists, but general observation shows most people to be totally caught up in the abundant junk that consumerism culture has to offer. You won't find much sympathy around here though, the holy grail of economics is an increase in demand (supply will follow) and thus gdp too. What they really want know here is how can we get people to work longer hours at the junk factory to buy more junk from the factories.

I think it best to finish off with a quote from the matrix about being a slave - as for me it correlates strongly to what you are trying to say:

Neo: The Matrix.
Morpheus: Do you want to know what it is?
Neo: Yes.
Morpheus: The Matrix is everywhere. It is all around us. Even now, in this very room. You can see it when you look out your window or when you turn on your television. You can feel it when you go to work... when you go to church... when you pay your taxes. It is the world that has been pulled over your eyes to blind you from the truth.
Neo: What truth?
Morpheus: That you are a slave, Neo. Like everyone else you were born into bondage. Into a prison that you cannot taste or see or touch. A prison for your mind.

There are no more enough vaults or lock rooms to store the excess cash that has been accumulated (hoarded) by the many banks (primarily the German ones) and by some of the so-called not-for-profit organisations / foundations. Back in the year 2000, H. Clinton stated that she and Bill were 'dead broke', if this is so, how did they manage to accumulate the billions in US$ in their foundations, personal and family wealth since then? The evidence is overwhelming and whoever thinks that the donors to the Clintons are going to stay silent after she is elected, if she gets elected, is in for a very big surprise. It is important to add, that there are many more culprits in the equation and these include the heads or shall one call them, the highly paid muppets that are heading all these so-called not-for-profit organisations / foundations whom have remained oblivious, silent and in some cases inactive all these years. Regrettably, there are too many criminals on the run and not enough prisons to house them, and one must not blame this on “Austerity”. There is no democracy in the US and there will never be. A society that allows its citizens to carry guns in public, to shot and kill at will and to steal and accumulate illicit wealth at will, is not a democracy.

It depends on how long term outcome do you count, only this election or also after this election. Hillary is likely to win this election, but if she do not really change the status quo (not just "greater economic inequality", but overturn the "rich get richer" trend), the uglier awaits.

There is a very simple solution to real democracy and to resolving inequality and that is to lock in all culprits and make them pay direly (and they are mainly the political leaders, political and financial advisers and central bankers) that have contributed at creating our modern times excessive inequality (through the likes of ill-conceived policies like austerity, biased fiscal measures, QE, excessive deliberate / irresponsible lending, etc.), especially since the year 2000 (when banks went out of control at the instructions of their cronies and started making billions in alleged / fictitious profits) up until today. One must confiscate all the assets and shame the culprits (being the public representatives and their cronies) in public, and this has been done only in very few random cases. The evidence against the culprits is more than overwhelming. Bin Laden may have pulled the trigger for the 9/11 attack but the orderer (s) has not only been exempt from any prosecution but such an exemption has been accompanied with a personal presidential apology and a free hand to embark on destroying the world and on self destruction. If one wants a fair world that is free from inequality, one must be truthful first of all with one self and with others, but there are again we are all humans, this can only remain a wishful thinking. Jeffrey, a fifth term of the Clintons will not resolve inequality or restore democracy if ever, it shall make things much, much worse. H. Clinton’s legacy during this US administration has been dismal to say the least.

To Stephan Edwards and everyone else who is somehow convinced that there is no difference between the two parties’ candidates with respect to addressing inequality:
How can you ignore the 180-degree difference between their policies? As I said in the column,
“As usual…it is the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, whose platform includes policies that will promote greater economic equality, including a more progressive tax system, higher wages, and universal health insurance. With enough support in Congress, Clinton would enact these policies. The Republican candidate, Donald Trump, favors the opposite policies: cutting taxes for the rich, keeping wages low, and rolling back health-care reforms.”
I could have added their policies on financial regulation and much else.
Jeff Frankel

This is yet more Elite apologia. On the most critical issue of all the two parties are as one: they BOTH oppose giving citizens a free choice in deciding the FORM of government they prefer for their country. They are BOTH committed to the "constitutional mortmain" which gives Establishment politicians a deadman's grip on the levers of power.

We know from work such as that of Bower et al ("Enraged or Engaged? Preferences for Direct Citizen Participation in Affluent Democracies", 2007) that:

a) in almost all countries a clear majority of respondents agree or strongly agree with the statement “Thinking about politics in [COUNTRY] . . . . Referendums are a good way to decide important political questions”;

b) in countries where there is no outright majority support, a strong plurality of respondents agree or strongly agree (with some having no view); and

c) support is STRONGEST in that country (Switzerland) where people have the MOST experience of such decision-making.

We know from the historical record that where citizens have been given a free choice (e.g. about half of US states, German lander, some other jurisdictions) they almost invariably vote for the adoption of such a system.

Most importantly, we know that where citizens enjoy democratic rights they never vote to repeal them, even though it's a straightforward process to initiate a referendum for that purpose. (In some jurisdictions the attempt has been made . . . and defeated at the ballot box!)

Unlike the corrupt system of elective government, genuine Democracy demonstrates the ongoing consent of the citizens being governed.

Those who oppose Democracy are the Elitists, those who would accept any form of government - no matter how bad, no matter how corrupt - rather than accept the Stinking Masses, riff-raff, hoi polloi (in general those whom they regard as their "inferiors") having any effective say in the government of their country.

We are left to ask the questions:

a) when did Mr Frankel acquire a Monopoly on Wisdom in these matters?

b) when was Mr Frankel granted a "Charter from Heaven" to decide the most important issue of all on behalf of the citizens?

They're not the same, but the differences are not worth giving up the opportunity to chip away at the biggest roadblock to progress on inequality, the two party system itself.

Of the differences listed by J Frankel above, a more progressive income tax for individuals is the only item on which is believable. Both D and R parties are fully on board with shielding big business from having to pay much taxes via a myriad of loopholes.

Universal health insurance is something that we have already, Obamacare - modeled on Romneycare - and is structured to be a gift to the insurance industry. The most basic plans which you can get if you have low income have prohibitive deductibles. Anyone who has "regular" insurance can also tell you that rates have gone up dramatically.

And last but not least, higher minimum wage was a result of Sanders, and a quick looks shows Clinton was going for $12 (vs $15). This policy is again at odds with the party's basic obligations to big-money sponsors.

@ Jeffrey Frankel - they are aware of the obvious differences, but they are implying that they are akin to a mask - behind the visage lies the true candidate and they are the same - none will do anything of enough significance to be other than a general continuation of the status quo with minor differences in flavor.

With all due respect, Mr. Frankel, all I am reading from you is platitudes, and no substance.
Restricting immigration is the most sure thing to increase wages, protect the environment, maintain high living standards and a high quality of life, etc. for Americans.

Even Bernie Sanders knows this:
'' Sanders responded that it the idea is “a Koch Brothers proposal,” a “right-wing proposal” (he presumably felt that Klein, a former Democratic blogger, was not a right-winger), and added that

“It would make everybody in America poorer—you’re doing away with the concept of a nation state…

“What right-wing people in this country would love is an open-border policy. Bring in all kinds of people, work for $2 or $3 an hour, that would be great for them. I don’t believe in that. I think we have to raise wages in this country, I think we have to do everything we can to create millions of jobs.

“You know what youth unemployment is in the United States of America today? … You think we should open the borders and bring in a lot of low-wage workers, or do you think maybe we should try to get jobs for those kids?”'' - https://berniesanders.com/open-borders-a-gimmick-not-a-solution/

Why is Wall Street overwhelmingly backing Hillary Clinton?
Why are all the Neoconservatives abandoning the Republican Party and are declaring, that they will be voting for Hillary Clinton?

''Twilight of American Jewry''
http://www.jpost.com/Opinion/Twilight-of-American-Jewry-467862

''This week the Intelligence Squared debating society held a public debate in New York. The debate was posted on Real Clear Politics website.

Two sides debated the proposition that the American elites are to blame for Trump’s rise. Arguing in favor of the proposition were two Christian journalists – Tim Carney and Ben Domenech.

Arguing against it were two Jewish journalists – Bret Stephens (a former Jerusalem Post editor-in-chief) and Jennifer Rubin.

Both Rubin and Stephens voiced their support for Clinton’s controversial assertion that half of Trump’s supporters are deplorable, unworthy of attention, un-American and irredeemable.

For their part, Domenech and Carney argued that Stephens and Rubin were ignoring the social and economic dislocation of the lower middle class. They argued that the suffering of members of this group has caused millions of Americans to feel betrayed by their political elites and turn to Trump to put a stop to a political game they believe is rigged against them.

Two-thirds of the way through the event, Carney brought up religion.

Carney allowed that many of Trump’s supporters are indeed bigoted. However, he said that “as a Christian,” he couldn’t accept that they are irredeemable because Christianity teaches that all men can be saved.

Rather than grant his point or simply ignore it, Rubin chose to respond in the name of Judaism. In so doing, she turned the debate into a contest between Christianity and Judaism.

Incorrectly arguing that Judaism does not believe in repentance as a road to redemption, Rubin pointed to herself and Stephens and said sardonically, “We Jews just believe in good and evil. We don’t believe that everyone is redeemable.”

The Christians won the debate in a knockout.''

Unfortunately, I see the same black-and-white thinking from you, Mr. Frankel.
I am afraid to say, that you have a YUGE blind spot when it comes to Hillary Clinton, which is a pity, because we need as many rational, unbiased, and non-partisan thinkers and academics - through these coming trying times - as we can get. I hope you can be one of them, but you are not one yet.

Dear mr Frankel, unfortunately for you and your masters in Washington and Wall street people have finally realized that the promises of the political class, left and right, are not even worth the paper they are written on. So it really doesn't matter to average Joe what the respective candidate is going to write in his political platform, because at the end when the time comes to choose between the interests of the average voter and the interest of the financial/political/military industrial complex the voter is always going to be the one thrown under the bus. The current US president is the perfect example. He was going to close Gitmo, he probably too had a bunch of policies for addressing inequality, he was going to reverse the Republican warfare diplomacy, they even gave him a Nobel Peace Prize (i guess the Noble Prize simply is not what it used to be as much else) and look what happened. Inequality shot up through FED's policies of showering the big banks and corporations with free money, Gitmo is still there, Obama's administration has actually increased the drone operations as compared to the Bush administration and so on.... So now you wonder why people don't buy the political class's message any more, really. What the so called elite, which includes you should understand is that just because someone does not have a Harvard degree does not mean he is a muppet that you can fool over again and again and again. Last but not least bear mind that eventually the people are going to change things around, and if you and your "elite" buddies don't shape up, that change might come in a French Revolution style.

Jeffrey, none of the commentators has missed anything, the figures speak for themselves. Inequality, across the board has gone totally out of control, some businesses paying next to nothing in taxes, whilst others are payingtover two thirds of their revenue in direct and indirect taxes. WQEand other money printing by central bankers have gone only to the 1%, whilst everyone else has been excluded. Austerity measures against the masses whilst unlimited spending on defence and the expenses of the political and financial elites and their cronies. One can write 10000 essays on inequality. Obama was never in charge, the Clinton team have been in control all along. A fifth term of the Clinton administration is more than guaranteed to finish off anything that islet standing. If the the democrats under Obama had their own agenda, a truthful agenda, the world would have been in a better shape today.. Trump is what he is.When e the voters are giving the choice between standing in front a firing squad (the democrats / QuaddafiQuaddafi Style) or hanging from a rope (the Republican / Sadam style), the outcome shall be exactly the same, more misery, more destruction and more inequality.and much more deaths.

Jeffrey Frankel says low voter turnout is a "fundamental problem" in the US - people simply don't take their voting rights seriously to "effect change." He thinks it's wrong, as voters can "shape their country's future," even though they can't change the flawed "political system" - not yet. Many citizens want change, which "may not happen as quickly as they would like." They are neither happy with the status quo nor with the candidates. Instead of voting for someone who is not ideal, they stay away from the polls, and "feel that they have no influence on electoral outcomes." Or they cast their votes for a third candidate, who is likely a long-shot.
The 2000 election should be a lesson to remember. Ralph Nader has gone down in history as a spoiler, because he had captured "the 2.9 million votes" that could have gone to Democratic candidate Al Gore, and tilted the election to Republican George W. Bush. The Bush legacy, much like his 2000 election, is still a subject of profound controversy. Within two years in office he got America involved in two long and costly wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the country is still bearing the brunt of its intervention there. Had Gore been elected, America's history would certainly have taken another trajectory. Today many Americans have not yet forgiven Nader.
This year's presidential election might see a repeat of history. Due to widespread disillusionment with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, two third-party candidates - Gary Johnson, Libertarian Party and Jill Stein, Green Party have decided to run. Even if Johnson and Stein did not poll high enough to qualify for the three presidential debates, to speak to tens of millions of voters, starting on September 26, their absence doesn't foreclose their possible influence on this election. As Trump and Clinton are neck-and-neck in the polls, Stein could siphon votes from Clinton, while Johnson could draw votes both from Clinton and Trump, to swing the election. If the two third-party candidates help Trump elect, history wouldn't be kind to them, ending their political ambition.
The author warns against a replay of Britain's vote to leave the EU last June on American soil. As the "Leave" camp won by a close margin, "many young people were furious; almost 75% of 18-24-year-olds wanted to remain part of the EU. But only one-third of them had actually voted. Meanwhile, more than 80% of voters aged 65 and older cast their ballots, largely for Brexit. If young people had turned out at just half the rate of the old, the margin probably would have been reversed."
By the same token if young Americans, ethnic groups - "particularly Latinos and Asian-Americans," see it as a hassle to register and leave work on election day to queue at a polling station, especially when weather is bad, they will forget about their duty altogether and think that their votes "don't matter." Or they don't like the candidates and just want to cast protest votes or protest-non-votes. This behaviour "could produce a decidedly brown outcome."
Therefore it is important that Americans go to the polls this year. Most of all to prevent Donald Trump from winning the election, because his presidency will be a disaster not only for America, but also for the rest of the world.﻿

As a swiss I am amazed how complicated voting seems to be in other countries. In Switzerland we vote so often that most people simply vote by mail, after having opted once in a lifetime to vote by mail no further registration is needed, ever. The envelope we receive at home contains a leaflet where the different sides can express their arguments, as well as where all parties can show their voting recommendations, plus the voting form, plus some card that we have to sign. The envelope is prestamped and pre-adressed to go back to the voting office and all you need is a random post box. It is very hard to not vote in those conditions. It's maybe the opposite of China where in order to vote, you have to physically become a member of the party, work your way up, become part of the general assembly or whatnot, before finally being allowed to cast your vote.

Switzerland is a Democracy. This article is discussing the problems of non-democratic elective government. Of course, the one thing its author could never bring himself to do is to contemplate Democracy as a solution . . . . or even to ask the citizens whether THEY would prefer Democracy as their system of government. It is, after all, THEIR country . . . . isn't it????

How can voting for those who will and do not want change can help?
"Notre ennui, nos mœurs fades sont le résultat du système politique." Balzac La Femme de Trente Ans 1832
"Our boredom, our insipid customs, are the result of the political system."

All those opinions have a similar core believe... that we can fix the system and go back to what it use to be. The concept is that the system is broken because it is not the same as before without understanding that the old system will be no more.
While there may be many different reasons for the change no one seems to realize that technology has changed every aspect of our lives and hence... why should we think that democracy and more important our Republican way of government have not been affected? Communication has fueled the old controversy between the "Direct Democracy" and "Republican" way of government hat our fore fathers settled with their harsh comments against "Direct Democracy" and by simply not mentioning even once the word democracy in our Constitution. Now with opinions being relaid to millions through text messages, Twitter, Facebook, etc. and the temptation to believe that direct democracy or even "Ochlocracy" are valid political options we are going to have to figure out how to adapt our government system to the new communication challenges.

Voting in this election is basically a waste of time. On one hand you have a multimillionaire whose policies will favor the rich and established interests and other hand you have a multimillionaire whose policies will favor the rich and established interests. Difference not very much. For those who will scream how liberal Hillary is look at the Clinton's actual acts not their rhetoric and you will note their policies inevitably favor wall street and the rich. Trump isn't even shy about it his policies will favor Trump and his interests which is to say the rich.
Bluntly Hillary will make many speeches and send many tweets but basically she will be 4 more years of the status quo which is to say the rich getting richer. Trump is the same thing. The Democrats make many speeches about reversing Citizen's united but the reality is they have no more interest in reversing it then the Republicans do. Frankly their isn't a nickel's difference between the parties on this issue.

Oh man, where to start? This Presidential election really does exemplify how rotten the 2-party US political system is. Voters are presented with two absolutely garbage choices on the top line. "not ideal" is an epic understatement.

If Inequality is the compaint, Trump is of course a cynical billionaire, and the Clintons have spent the last 15 years collecting hundreds of millions into what is in large part a political slush fund, from billionaires of course (many foreign to boot), but of course without coming under any kind of influence. As the champion of big money in politics, it's also hard to believe she will be against Citizens United when it really counts, despite anything you might hear her say on the campaign trail. Trump's trustworthiness on this subject is similarly poor.

If militarism is the point, Trump has been, unabashedly anti-muslim, while Clinton has been unabashedly pro-war in the neo-con style, and has the track record to prove it in Libya.

Now perhaps the author was motivated be a desire to prevent Trump from being President. If so, I would ask, why did your party nominate the most controversial, least liked candidate in this important race? It's not as if there was a shortage of more competitive candidates.

In this important race, the Democratic party put up someone who is basically like the Florence Foster Jenkins of the party. More than anything else, shows how much the Democratic leadership prioritizes winning and actually accomplishing the lofty and genuinely laudable goals which they pay lip service to.

The Republican party is of course no better.

A vote for either of these dumpster relics would be throwing our vote away.

The problem is the lock the 2 parties have. One part, not the whole thing, but a necessary part, of freeing US politics from the 2-party trap is *Instant Runoff Voting* , aka *Ranked Choice Voting*. Together with *Proportional Representation*. I strongly urge everyone reading this to look these up on wikipedia.

See also:

In the first year of his presidency, Donald Trump has consistently sold out the blue-collar, socially conservative whites who brought him to power, while pursuing policies to enrich his fellow plutocrats.

Sooner or later, Trump's core supporters will wake up to this fact, so it is worth asking how far he might go to keep them on his side.

A Saudi prince has been revealed to be the buyer of Leonardo da Vinci's "Salvator Mundi," for which he spent $450.3 million. Had he given the money to the poor, as the subject of the painting instructed another rich man, he could have restored eyesight to nine million people, or enabled 13 million families to grow 50% more food.

While many people believe that technological progress and job destruction are accelerating dramatically, there is no evidence of either trend. In reality, total factor productivity, the best summary measure of the pace of technical change, has been stagnating since 2005 in the US and across the advanced-country world.

The Bollywood film Padmavati has inspired heated debate, hysterical threats of violence, and a ban in four states governed by the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party – all before its release. The tolerance that once accompanied India’s remarkable diversity is wearing thin these days.

The Hungarian government has released the results of its "national consultation" on what it calls the "Soros Plan" to flood the country with Muslim migrants and refugees. But no such plan exists, only a taxpayer-funded propaganda campaign to help a corrupt administration deflect attention from its failure to fulfill Hungarians’ aspirations.

French President Emmanuel Macron wants European leaders to appoint a eurozone finance minister as a way to ensure the single currency's long-term viability. But would it work, and, more fundamentally, is it necessary?

The US decision to recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel comes in defiance of overwhelming global opposition. The message is clear: the Trump administration is determined to dictate the Israeli version of peace with the Palestinians, rather than to mediate an equitable agreement between the two sides.